As the Gonzi administration limps towards the fag-end of its time in office and Malta looks ahead to the start of a new government, possibly led by the Labour Party, it may be timely to remind all those who are in the public service, and those who by standing for election hope to join in the service of their country, what the ethical standards to which they aspire are.

Just a few months ago, Tonio Borg, in one of his last acts before departing for Brussels, presented the House of Representatives with a White Paper entitled “More Autonomy, More Accountability”. One of the issues it dealt with was the vitally important proposal to set up a mechanism to control the behaviour of Members of Parliament “both inside and outside the House”. The establishment of an office of Parliamentary Commissioner on Standards, based on the Westminster model, is being proposed.

As the White Paper states: “Enforcing ethical behaviour is in the interests of the Parliamentary institution itself.... The time has come to provide redress to any member of the public who submits a genuine complaint against a Member of Parliament for abusive behaviour which is in breach of the Code of Ethics.”

What then are the ethical qualities we should be looking for in our public servants? As the White Paper said – and it applies equally to a parliamentarian as to a civil servant − “Participation in public life is a noble thing. It is an honour to serve one’s country in public office.”

There is a something tangible about the public service ethic. I am fortunate to have spent all my life as a public servant, first as an army officer, then in probably the best Civil Service in the world, in Whitehall. There I was taught that an ethical public service stood committed to neutrality of process, that is one which was impartial and non-partisan. Public power was not to be used to further the private purposes of those to whom it was entrusted. It was to be used solely for the furtherance of public purposes as defined by constitutional process.

To this end, those in the service of the public, whether public officials or elected members of central government or local councils, should evolve rules, which they should adhere to, for example, for the control of public money, and for other formal accountabilities, such that even the temptation to use public power for private ends should, in these areas, be largely eliminated. Ethics in public life are crucial to keeping our entire system of government clean and decent.

Let me however, at the outset draw a clear distinction between politicians and public officers. Although the need for setting the highest ethical standards in public life should be paramount for both, there is an intrinsic difference in the way politicians and public officials operate. The Civil Service is an evidence-driven profession, but politics isn’t. A civil servant cannot adhere to the belief that the exercise of political will is the be-all-and-end-all (as it has to be among parliamentarians). Politics is the art of mobilising prejudice, while reason is the enemy of prejudice. These two factors dictate the difference of approach between them.

But even while allowing for these differences, the fundamental qualities of public service ethics remain broadly similar for all those privileged to call themselves public servants. What are the component parts of good public service ethics? I shall list eight that matter, as together they contribute to a sum much greater than their individual parts. These form the bedrock of sound public service ethics.

Probity. Despite one or two glitches, we have on the whole an incorruptible public service. While there have been individual cases of corruption, departmental and ministerial tills are largely hands-free zones. This is a pearl of great price we must continue to guard. If it were no longer so, the country would be impoverished in a moral as well as a financial sense.

Care for evidence. The Civil Service is an evidence-driven service, by which I mean that the advice it proffers its political masters is based on impartial evidence. Constant care has to be taken to prevent anyone, including the minister, from tampering with, for example, official statistical evidence. The trouble arises where evidence gives way to hunches or wishful thinking.

A respect for reason. Reason is the enemy of political prejudice. Political will is not everything. A good minister must respect the evidence presented and seek the ultimate public interest.

A willingness to speak truth unto power. If a civil servant cannot tell a minister that he or she is wrong and why, nobody can, even though in the end the civil servant has to do what the minister says. A civil servant must be constitutionally subordinate to ministerial policy. The minister is elected while the civil servant is only appointed.

A capacity notwithstanding to pursue a mistaken course energetically. If a civil servant disagrees with his minister he has not only to live with the consequences of what he believes, but also to pursue it energetically regardless of his own personal views. There has to be utter loyalty in executing ordained error.

An appreciation of the wider public interest. In conjunction with the capacity to pursue any ministerial course loyally, however awkward, there must also be at the very least an appreciation of the wider public interest.

An awareness of the impact on other people. Government is involved in policies and programmes which affect directly and sometimes intimately just over 400,000 people. Inefficiency in delivery of an individual citizen’s benefits or entitlements can affect citizens adversely.

Equity and fairness. In Malta, where politics is so polarised, the need for equity and fairness go to the heart of good governance. All citizens should have the same entitlement to careful, reliable individual treatment.

While these eight factors comprise the essential ethical elements, there are three pillars that are crucial to the stability of the entire system. The three pillars are: a constant and careful concern for the rule of law; a constant concern for Parliament’s needs and procedures; and an unshakeable concern for democracy. These together also shore up the requirement in a liberal, constitutional democracy that public servants are under the control of a higher authority of elected ministers, while all are absolutely accountable to Parliament. 

Civil servants may occasionally not like the kind of people democracy places above them, but any kind of disloyalty or de-stabilisation is simply unacceptable. In the same way, as we have seen so spectacularly over the last year in our Parliament, if individual members stretch the bounds of reasonable, ethical behaviour to the limit, the whole democratic structure is weakened.

If you wrap together into one bundle these eight professional ethical standards, together with the three legal, constitutional and democratic pillars, you are left with a remarkably good overall ethical standard by any measure. With luck, you should also get something else. This is a public service motivation which engenders that sense of pride in public service that continues to attract a good share of the most altruistic and decently-motivated to the service of their country.